Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Ida.: Settlements in potato price fixing class action get preliminary approval, (Jun 19, 2015)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The federal district court in Boise, Idaho has granted preliminary approval to two proposed settlements in a class action brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of potatoes against producers and a distributor for allegedly conspiring to fix potato prices (In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation, June 17, 2015, Winmill, B.).

Direct and indirect purchasers of potatoes filed suit against several potato producers and a distributor, alleging a conspiracy by the defendants to reduce the supply of potatoes in order to raise prices. The plaintiffs alleged that the producers formed cooperatives for the purpose of increasing the price of potatoes through supply management. The cooperatives allegedly agreed to limit potato planting acreages and paid farmers to either destroy existing stocks or refrain from growing potatoes in order to reduce the supply of potatoes available for sale.

Direct purchaser settlement classes. For purposes of the direct purchaser settlement, the court preliminarily certified classes for monetary and injunctive relief as follows: all persons or entities who, between June 18, 2006 and the date on which the court enters the preliminary approval order, directly purchased fresh potatoes grown in the United States from any defendant or any entity that packed or marketed fresh potatoes grown by any defendant.

The plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). The court preliminarily determined that the members of the settlement class were so numerous that joinder would be impracticable and there were questions of fact or law common to the classes. The claims and defenses of the named plaintiffs were typical of the claims and defenses of the proposed settlement class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. A class action was found to be superior to other available methods for fairly adjudicating the controversy.

The court also approved the proposed plan for the dissemination of notice and appointed counsel for the settlement classes.

Reasonableness of the settlement. The settlement falls within the range of possible approval and was sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to the settlement classes that were certified, according to the court. The hearing regarding the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement was set for December 3, 2015.

Indirect purchaser settlement classes. For purposes of the indirect purchaser settlement, the court preliminarily certified classes for monetary and injunctive relief as follows: all individuals and entities who purchased fresh potatoes from retailers in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin for end use and not for resale between October 14, 2004 and April 10, 2015.

The plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). The court preliminarily determined that the members of the settlement class were so numerous that joinder would be impracticable and that there were questions of fact or law common to the classes. The claims and defenses of the named plaintiffs were typical of the claims and defenses of the proposed settlement class and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Further, a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly adjudicating the controversy.

The court specifically found that the settlement resulted from serious and informed arms-length negotiations, provides meaningful relief to the classes, and is not preferential to the class representatives. The named plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the classes.

The court also approved the proposed plan for the dissemination of notice and appointed a claims administrator.

The hearing regarding the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlements was set for December 3, 2015.

The case is No. 4:10-md-02186.

Attorneys: Susan G. Kupfer (Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP) for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. Amanda K. Brailsford (Andersen Banducci PLLC) for United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc. Daniel G. Swanson (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP) for Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc. Richard C. Boardman (Perkins Coie) for General Mills, Inc. Brad P. Miller (Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley) for Bayer CropScience LP. James A. Wilson (Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP) for Idahoan Foods, LLC.

Companies: United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc.; Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.; General Mills, Inc.; Bayer CropScience LP; Idahoan Foods, LLC

Cases: Antitrust IdahoNews